Astral Projection, OBE’s and other spooky things.

“The face that faces faces that we face” (Eliot)is a necessary POV for getting anything done. It is problematic as ego only when it forgets that it is an integral part of a larger whole, a plenitude of faces in which each deserves life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We forget we are part of an ecosystem at our own peril. As is true in most religions enlightenment is translated as selfish. It’s always what do I get out of it? Will I get Hell? Nirvana? Oblivion? Ego sillyness!

gib,

Here you are simply speaking of hubris, correct?

I never speak hubris, Arc, but sometimes Buddhists do. :laughing:

Would it not rather be “it ties you to the wheel of suffering”?

Oh so thats what you said, yes.
Why then the “ought”?

Good observation about the Buddhist attachment to non-attachment, which is compulsive enough to cause a whole new wheel of suffering into being.

It seems to be that Siddharta was rather egotistical when he sat down below the tree and said fuck you all to his family. I think it is egoic to aim for personal liberation. And I find most Buddhists radically egoistical in pursuit of the same not-caring independence.

In the West, the ego is the agent of morality. Morality and indifference aren’t compatible. Thats not an argument for morality or against indifference, or egoism. Just an observation.

Fixed Cross,

Why?
By personal liberation, do you mean the capacity to feel “free” and “autonomous”?
Think about the person who does not have this inner experience?
How does that person affect others?

Why would that be a negative, why would it be selfish?
Do you think that that would take away from a person’s sense of inter-connectedness?

Why does ego (not hubris) also have such a bad name? Without it, how could we possibly survive?

As someone above said, even trying to detach from ego is an attachment or a desire in itself.
If ego evolved as part of the conscious mind, why would we choose to do away with something which is important for the survival of the species?
Would it even be possible to do away with something which is so ingrained within us and necessary?

Without “true” ego, how could the human mind perform this balancing feat?

balance.jpg

That is where we would want our ego to take us, no? We help it find its rightful place ~ we do not want try to do away with it.

How do we discover true value and meaning in particular things without that landscape which is the sense of self and identity?
How do we share our selves with others if we are always trying to do away with this important aspect of our being?

I mean the liberation from the wheel of suffering.

I am sure someones feelings of freedom and autonomy don’t come from release from the wheel of suffering.
Meaning I am no Buddhist. I don’t share Buddhas convictions or aims at all.

I think Buddhism produces people who victimize their environment in the belief that it is justified to stand aside from the worlds suffering.
Buddhism is like the antithesis to Christian ethos of empathy, to which I feel a it more connected, as it is at least not as cowardly.

Its too broad of a term.
I consider the ego necessary and thus good at heart, but only good if it is proud and overt - which doesn’t mean it can’t be modest in expression.
But the ego tends to be sickly and wounded. Thats what most therapists would call the ego - ones egoic wounds.

Yes, exactly. Could it have been me who said that?

No, I don’t think it would.
Thus the conundrum; I think it is egoic to want to do away with the burden of the ego.

Indeed. My honest assessment, based on twenty years of experience with such cases, is that the loss of ego amounts directly in psychosis.
The two are the same. Psychosis is the fracturing of the ego, of the sense of being an autonomous entity.

Agreed.

Yes. It is impossible to share ourselves with the whole entire cosmos. It is egoic narcissism that makes Buddhists think that what they experience is “the great all”. It is just their calmed nerves.

Yes, I think this is a very important point. I’m always one for demythologizing religion. Demythologizing results in recognizing where a religion’s strengths lie and where its weaknesses lie, what aspects of it are real and what aspects are ungrounded dogma. I think what the Buddhists have stumbled upon is a way of life and a set of practices that result in a calmer mind that is more able to handle the challenges and adversities of life. And this has been proven by many studies, including ones that involve brain scans (there is a noticeable difference between the brain activity of the Buddhist while in a state of meditation vs. less practiced individuals). But this easily has a psychological explanation. Personally, I think it’s just Maslow’s state of self-actualization. The thing about natural explanations is that they are never absolute. The devout Buddhist would like to say his methods bring him absolute peace and enlightenment, that he is completely detached from the material pleasures of the world, that it works for everyone, that they can maintain this state through any kind of adversity. But the psychological explanation only says that it works most of the time, that it’s possible to fall of the horse sometimes, that it isn’t perfect, that it may not work for everyone (those with ADD for example are better off using different methods than meditation). And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s okay that one maintains an attachment to the Buddhist practices and beliefs–if they work as a psychological tool to bring one peace of mind and better coping skills for dealing with challenges and adversity, then it’s probably a good attachment to have; that one would insist on having no attachments is unnecessary.

I agree that the Buddhist path isn’t always an ethical path. I don’t know if I agree with you on this specific point (that Buddhists are just standing back from the world’s suffering) but I’ve considered this: to disengage one’s self from all worldly attachments might sometimes mean abandoning one’s family and loved ones. Those who choose to live out the rest of their lives in a monastery, for example, would have to leave their spouse and children (if they have them), and I’m not so sure that’s ethical. The Buddhist path only promises enlightenment at the end, but it is not a “thou shalt”.

Nope, it was me. (You even commented on it.)

I think it might be possible, just as it’s possible to remove one’s liver or kidneys, but just like removing one’s liver or kidneys, one runs the risk of compromising their health (although these operations are usually done to improve one’s health–for example, liver damage due to alcohol abuse–but it does come at a cost). However, like I said earlier, the Buddhist tends to devalue any attachments to the world, to this life, so if the dissolution of the ego puts one’s survival at risk, they may not even care.

On the other hand, I can see the Buddhist retort: by dissolving the ego, one becomes better at taking on the challenges and adversities of life, including staying alive itself. I can see this being the case if modern day life has corrupted the ego–a sickly wounded ego like you say–and drawn us away from the state of ego from long ago. If a species best fits its environment right at its dawn, then we best fit our environment 200,000 years ago (when they say human being, in the modern form, first evolved). Maybe back then we had a “healthy” ego, and what the Buddhist practice does is not to dissolve the ego but to return the ego to the state it was in during those prehistoric times.

Do they however take it too far, going beyond finding a good resting state of consciousness, to a detachment from the world? Better, I should phrase it, is this really good for me, given my values, which include being engaged in the world and wanting it to be more X than Y, and wanting to be a creator, through various art forms, and wanting to be expressive and intimately involved with others as an authentic self not a void that is good at not getting upset? It might be the goal of some, but is it everyone’s goal?

They don’t have a thou shalt in the Christian coversion violence sort of way, but they do think that one must, in the end, follow this path and give up the ego, detach from desires and that Karma will force you to do this in the end. That is might be a specific choice suiting specific people, rather than a sign of being more highly evolved is something not really considered in Buddhism. So you will still end up being judged and vibed.

I don’t see any basis in scripture or practices to indicate this. The meditative states they seek are not ones stone age humans were likely to have achieved.

One’s values will always drive one to choose the lifestyle that those values perscribe. If your values perscribe a life of engagement in the world and with people, then those go against a set of values that perscribe a life of withdrawal from the world and people. I would say the latter are bad for your values, but I don’t know about bad for you (<-- there, we’d have to define what it means for something to be “good” for you or “bad” for you). Values always act as blinders. You can’t really tell what’s “objectively” good for you or bad for you outside your values. Your values will always perscribe “good” or “bad” for you regardless of whether they really are good or bad for you.

And keep in mind, we’re talking about a set of values, not Buddhists per se. Some Buddhist would follow the path of withdrawal from the world and people, but many others will not. The Mahayana Buddhists, for example, practice charitable engagement in the world as a response to the “universal compassion” that the Buddhist practice as a whole supposedly nurtures. I think most Buddhists would disagree that withdrawal from the world is required to achieve peace of mind and enlightenment (it’s just easier).

But ultimately, I think you’re right. There is no “ought” when it comes to the Buddhist way of life. It’s just offered as a path one can choose to take, and the promise is that enlightenment awaits them at the end.

I think this comes from the human side of the Buddhists. Humans will judge. They will assess right and wrong. As for the Buddhist doctrine, however, I don’t think it emphasizing any moral imperative when it comes to the path towards enlightenment.

Of course it’s not in scripture. Buddhism arrived on the scene two and a half millennia ago. They had no knowledge of “primitive man” back then, or anything about humanities pre-history. The practice of meditation, once you learn to go deep enough, is supposed to bring you to states of consciousness well beyond what human beings are typically used to. But the overall effect of cultivating a peaceful mind and being enlightened is supposed to be an after effect of meditation, or the state of mind you maintain between meditation sessions (you know, going about your daily life). ← It’s that state which I’m suggesting might be closer to primitive man. It just requires meditation in today’s world in order to get back to it.

Buddhists wouldn’t necessarily describe it that way because Buddhists are religious. They don’t interpret their practice or experiences in terms of “primitive man”. I’m only interpreting it this way because I’m demythologizing it.

It’s not withdrawel from the world, one cannot do that. Even the hermit must relate to his cave or hut and food and nature or his or her civilized ‘hut’ and what’s there. That’s still world. The withdrawel in Buddhism is from themselves, from their own limbic systems, from expressing themselves and loving the whole thing. From strving from desire in this world. They take themselves out, leaving only this sliver of neocortex noticing present.

But they are not truly engaged with it. It is a set of passing forms to them, something not to attach to. And yes, I am glad that some do nice things for suffering others.

Once one has judged and pared off those parts of the self considered evil, in the Buddhist sense of the term.

It is built into doctrine to judge desire and emotions. This leads to its presence in the human participants.

[/quote]
I didn’t mean that we should find references to CRoMagnon minds in Buddhist scripture, I meant that I see nothing to indicate in Scripture the kind of minds neolithic people would have had. I do get that they were not stuck in their cellphones and likely less enamoured of BS conversations of abstractions. But they were hardly meditators, certainly functioned from very clear subject object splits and did not function out of judgments that desire was problematic as a rule.

And to try to turn this back to at least indirectly related to the thread, I notice that in the OP chakra seems to think one must let go of the ego to experience OBE’s and/or will let go of the ego if one has these. This is simply not true. There are old ideas about the self and what is bad in it, that come through Buddhism and other systems, and they have not, in general helped us.

In this case, withdrawal means from civilization or the social world.

Whatever Buddhists are withdrawing from, it’s not the limbic system. If anything, the limbic system gets better expressed due to the silencing of the neocortex. The neocortex is the ‘programmable’ part of the brain, the part of the brain loaded with all our cultural values and beliefs, our codes of conduct and proper social ediquette (at least, certain parts of the neocortex). By turning that off once in a while, the Buddhists gets to know themselves better–the true self, the animal self which is closer to the limbic system.

This exercise, that of silencing the neocortex during states of meditation, is not a permanent state the Buddhist tries to maintain throughout his life; it simply exercises the skill of being able to turn on/off all the crap that’s loaded onto the brain from one’s culture, turning it on/off more easily than other people. It’s not the practice of getting rid of any part of the self, but rather to gain control over it.

There’s a difference between being engaged and being attached, about as much of a difference as that between having a drink and being an alcoholic.

Do you have any evidence for this? Any passages from scripture?

Again, meditation wasn’t required back then. The only reason Buddhists meditate now is to get themselves out of the frame of mind that modern day society puts us in.

As a demythology, I don’t see why primitive man needs to disolve the subject/object split (not that you or I would know whether or not they perceived a split). And to understand that desire is problematic is about as necessary as understanding that alcohol is bad for you if you live in an environment in which alcohol doesn’t exist. I’m not saying primitive man never experienced desire, or that desire didn’t attach him to certain worldly pleasures, just that as a demythologization, it’s not that unthinkable that the desires of primitive man were relatively simple and not too difficult to satisfy–and therefore desire didn’t stand out as a candidate for the root cause of man’s suffering.

It is clear in Buddhism that the Buddhist way of life cannot help you unless you actually practice it. It isn’t like a new medicine that is handed over to you on a silver platter. How many of us really practice the Buddhist method with reasonable and honest effort?

I disagree. Buddhist and Buddhist communities require the disengagement of emotions from expression and the disidentification from emotions. And if you express a range of emotions, you will find yourself under social pressures. The injunctions against desire are even more explicit. Yes, certain functions of the neocortex are also disidentified with, but the neocortex, for example sensory perception and control and focus. It is a top down control system - as are many religions, but very much focused on learning not to embody and express emotions.

Of course many buddhists just do the disidentification and suppression mainly in meditation, but the goals is to do this all the time. Moving around in mindfulness, disidentified with emotions and thoughts (the latter not all that the neorcotex is) and controlling expression. You get good at that the emotional body does not develop and it does not participate in the life of the individual.

They are attached to not identifying and expressing emotions. Try going in to one of these communities and temples and being a passionate, emotionally expressive person. You will find that they judge and have a dualism at the heart of their supposed non-judgemental acceptance, and it will not be pleasant, even if they behave ‘calmly.’

Desire is considered the root of suffering. As far as emotions, I do not know if scripture directly leads to practice. I can only say that practice is universal. I have been to Buddhist organizations all over the West and East, and it’s a rule. These guys are not like, say, shamans or druids or pagans, for example.

Modern society? It has been the rule in many rural Eastern societies for a couple of thousand years. IOW people living off the land either in hunter or fishing type sustenance groups or farmers. It is meant as a universal cure for the ailment of being human.

Neolithics very directly accepted his or her desires and passions. And we can see this in hunter gatherer societies also that survived up until contact with Europe and anthropologists. The seeing desire as problematic would be alien to them. Their religions were often quite expressive and interactions tended to be quite passionate, especially with other tribes or groups.

I did, for years. Good discipline. It did not help me, except to the extent that I learned what I do not want and what I do not want to disidentify with. I understand and have sympathy for their fear of emotions, especially the deep, cut off ones that people generally avoid and do not even realize are their. I would guess they noticed these emotions, deep in their, and decided the best thing to do was suppress, disidentify, control emotional and physical expression, and that the full self could not be enlightened, so they labeled certain parts obstacles, not the buddha (though always also the Buddha). But despite my sympathy I don’t like that path or set of paths. And they are not honest about what they do. Many teachers and masters will say that we should accept our emotions, but they tend not to mean the so called negative ones, and they certainly to not mean expressing them. Observe them. It’s like if you say you accept your kids, but you do not let them make noise or move with passion. It’s ain’t love, and in the end it ain’t compassion.

And just as you think one cannot judge it in the negative if one has actually practiced it, one cannot judge it in the positive either. I do think many people do not want their full emotional presence - I mean just look at how much we distract and medicate our emotions away - and if they choose that path, then they are choosing what they want and that is the right choice for them.

But it’s not my.

I want my limbic system fully integrated and expressive, not compassionately watched through a telescope while holding a single position for hours, perhaps even having someone hit you with a stick if your back is not straight enough - the for Zen fans. Of course Zen is just one branch and I doubt many do that anymore especially in the West. But really, I like the honesty of that version. That is what is happening inside anyway.

Fantastic posts. Thanks for a great read.
You’ve described my own very extensive experience with Buddhism and Buddhists flawlessly.
Buddhists are ultimately emotionally lobotomized and are very boring and judgmental semi-humans.
And indeed of all this, Zen is the only version that is clean in an important sense, as it is honest and therefore ultimately allows the practitioner some autonomy in what he regulates.

Or rather, Zen is the least micromanaging form of Buddhist “acceptance” - it is truly ready to accept a lot, as long as it can suffer silence.

Western people that meditate and call themselves “mindful” are the very worst sociopaths I ve personally known.

I haven’t met many who describe themselves that way, but I see mindfulness EVERYFUCKINGWHERE. Cherry picking pieces of religions and making every fucking worker do this so that they don’t mind their work so much, being more detached from it. I mean, fuck with some jobs, I get it: anything to reduce the boring, stressfilled meaningless shit. I get that. But the way people say the word - like we are talking about magic fairy dust that is also certified by science makes me nauseous. Anti-political solutions that make the individual responsible for tolerating BS. Similar to the utter fascination with cognitive-behavioral solutions to the human situation. That is shallow, reorienting mental apps, to get you back in there, with no new self-knowledge and nothing to get at the profundity of being alive. Though CBTs are coming out of Western mind hacks, it comes down to the same kind of shit for me.

I am no fan of Buddhism, obviously, but at least certain practitioners take it seriously and it fits their values and they put some work into it. I don’t like it but I can respect their commitmentment and holistic approach. But this, hey, let’s take this one trick since it seems to make people complain less, one trick pony garbage…

Ugh.

Agreed.
I think this is essentially Confucius’ method of taming men.
He, too, put a lot of water to the wine of Buddhism, and made it, it seems to me, into a mere tool to placate people, and have them believe their happiness is entirely a matter of how they look at what they have.
It is a most efficient pacifier.

Worse even is that it sets up the weakest, most spineless people to take on position of moral and psychological authority. The aforementioned “mindful ones”. They take it from sloth to rot.

Is that what they tell you they’re doing? Learning not to express emotion?

Finding yourself under social pressure for going against the norm or defying expectations isn’t that surprising. That’s the human aspect of the Buddhist. It comes with every human institution. It comes even in Christianity, one of the world’s most judgemental religions (IMNSHO), despite passages from scripture that prescribe the opposite (“judge not, lest ye be judged”). But I don’t think there’s anything in Buddhist doctrine that says: thou shalt judge those who express emotion.

And don’t get me wrong. I celebrate emotion too. I’ve just found that certain techniques (some Buddhist, some not) have helped to exercise control over one’s mind, which can help to control certain emotions.

I’ve heard Buddhist say the same thing: the goal is to remain in that meditative state all the time. However, this goal is still a choice up to the individual. And there will always be group think and conformity in any religion, which means a sharing of similar goals (often with social pressure to boot). Personally, I don’t know how anything can get done by remaining in that state all the time, but maybe I’m imagining that state wrong. In any case, gaining practice at something means making it more easy to do all the time, so it wouldn’t be surprising if many Buddhists who have gained a ton of practice at meditation can do it easily 90% of the time. And if you can do it easily 90% of the time, why not? I would agree with your sentiments if it came to practitioners who were forcing themselves to do it all the time, and if it’s forced, I don’t think you’re really doing it. It’s like faking it, and nothing more than suppressing emotions and thoughts (which I don’t think is the same thing as what Buddhists are doing).

I’m not sure what this has to do with social engagement. Being attached to not identifying and expressing emotions is not the same as being attached to social engagements. And I’ve met lots of Buddhists who have absolutely no qualms expressing emotion… so long as it’s happy, loving emotions. ← They don’t mind showing these when they engage with people socially.

It’s not too surprising that this would be the case. And even though I don’t think there’s anything in Buddhist doctrine that says one must suppress their emotions or that one must judge those who don’t, it’s sort of implied in the sense that the Buddhist goal involves detachment from emotions. It’s very likely that people will associate that with emotions being bad, maybe even morally bad, but that’s more a tendency of the nature of human interpretation than formal doctrine.

I would say that those who practice suppressing emotion or denying it are not following the practice properly. I would say that the practice would require being aware of and acknowledging one’s emotions, but just not reacting to them, and specifically only when one is meditating. This practice is suppose to cultivate a calmer mind, but this is supposed to be an effect, not an obligation. However, as with pretty much all religions, if you don’t exhibit the effects you’re suppose to experience or display according to theory, there is a tendency for others to think there is something wrong with you. ← This is what puts on the pressure. This is what makes adherents feel obligated.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume rural life, or “living off the land,” is the same as living as primitive man did. Life may be simpler in rural areas of the world, closer to nature so to speak, but modern day life certainly still takes a toll. Are the people of Eastern societies free of tyrannical government? Of media? Of language? Of awareness of the modern state of the world? Of their own culture and social pressures? Of technologies (even if not as advanced as those found in city life)? Language in particular has a very profound effect on the state of mind of the members of this or that community. Remember, language required time to evolve. Man didn’t pop onto the scene with a fully developed language. In the beginning, he wasn’t much more than an intelligent ape, closer to an animal than human beings today.

I’m also starting to doubt that you understand what I mean by “demythologizing”. There is the mythical state of being “enlightened” that Buddhists strive towards, and then there is the natural state that primitive man used to experience for the better part of his life. Even if those living in rural conditions today practice Buddhist techniques like meditation and mindfulness, it’s most likely because they too believe that these practices will bring them to the mythical state of enlightenment, not the natural state of primitive man. This is most likely what they’ve been taught. As a consequence, they are taught that their current state of mind–even if it’s relatively peaceful compared to the hectic life and stressful ways of city life, even if it’s the same as primitive man–is not good enough, that there is an even more peaceful, enlightened state of mind to be attained by meditation and mindfulness. That is, they are taught the myth of perfect peace, of perfect enlightenment, not the reality of peaceful enough, enlightened enough.

Again, this is easily explained by methymologizing. I am not saying the natural state of primitive man was without emotion, or expression of emotion; I would think it involved acceptance of emotion rather than the view that certain emotions were unacceptable. And though it may seem counterintuitive, the acceptance of emotion does lead to less emotionality, or a calmer, happier state of mind; it means one doesn’t have to feel bad or guilty about feeling or expressing emotion, which would otherwise exacerbate negative emotions.

If you want to criticize Buddhists, this is one point I will agree with you on; the Buddhist ought to meditate on his inner states as well as the outer world–his emotions and thoughts–for those are just as real, and therefore just as subject to awareness, as the state of the world in the here and now. You describe a certain brand of Buddhist who wants to suppress or deny his emotions–I agree that this is unhealthy and is more likely to backfire–but the Buddhist I have in mind is the one who admits and is not deterred about feeling his emotions, but also practices control over his emotional reactions; it’s self-control that this Buddhist practices, not denial or cutting himself off from his emotions. ← The latter leads to less control, the former to more control.

That depends. Are my children misbehaving? Getting themselves in trouble? What if their passion leads them to want to play in traffic? Am I not accepting my children by holding them back from doing so?

I think a distinction ought to be made between suppressing one’s passions and suppressing one’s behavior. I agree that suppressing one’s passions is not healthy, but we all need to control our behavior, and the more control we have, the more control we have over our lives, which ultimately leads to more happiness and peace.

Beyond what Buddhists do and what’s going on inside, we can all have our personal opinions of what counts as a “good” way of life or a “bad” way of life. ← This is typically subjective. Being in touch with all one’s emotions and having no qualms with expressing them can be seen as a good thing… or a bad thing if the expression of those emotions is destructive. I’m in agreement with you about the badness of cutting one’s self off from one’s emotions–and it’s no surprise that many Buddhists do this–but I disagree that expressing one’s emotions all the time (assuming that means letting one’s emotions take control of one’s behavior, including self-expression in social situations) is always a good thing. I think the Buddhist who practices control over his behavior (meaning controlling how his emotions determine his behavior and self-expression) is general on the right path.

Sure, it can get verbalized, always there is vibe, and since I tended to respond to the vibe, I was generally informed that expression of emotions should be dampened. And I am not talking about me want to throw a tantrum in the meditation room.

Buddhist practice and doctrine disidentify with emotions and cut the emotions off from expression. Thoughts are also disidentified with, but they do not need the same expression when one is in a natural state. It is not just humans being human, this is central to the Buddhist project. If you are expressing emotions, you are seen as not doing what they are doing. And correctly.

I don’t need to control my emotions, not anymore. I think the frontal lobes think they understand things they do not, and this leads to the judgments that make the emotions problematic, both in society and families and intrapsychically - and this in turn seems to confirm to the frontal lobes that the amygdala needs chains. Once you get used to expressing them, they are not explosive – unless something very intense is happening - or twisted.

Of course. I am not saying they kidnapped me and told me to stop having emotions. I am talking about what they consider necessary and what they consider good. And this is connected to what they consider enlightenment is.

It sounds like you are defending something you don’t have much experience with. (I see below that you do. You say you meditated for years despite the ADHD and how this makes it not work. Consider that perhaps you weren’t meditating as Buddhists do, since the ADHD inhibited it. Which sounds all to the good to me.)

In the West I see more strongly the happy Buddhist thing. And yes, there we have judgments of some emotions and not others. I don’t really see that as better. If I stifle some of my emotions, the depths of the others are affected. Beyond that the judgments around the so called negative emotions are unfounded. I have sympathy for them. I know one can find confirmations of what the emotions supposedly must be like if they are identified with. But it is old ideas about what must be the case.

Right, it’s not a coincidence. Hell, I can hang out with members of other religions – Hindus, Catholics, for example, and find a much wider range of emotional expression and acceptance of it in others. There are judgments there also, but Buddhism has it really deep.

Honestly Gib, I don’t think you know what you are talking about. I think you have some ideas about Buddhism, perhaps idealize it in certain ways, but suppression of the emotions and their expression is a core part of every Buddhist place I’ve encountered and the master will justify this by referring to scripture. Yes, scripture does not specifically say it, but it does, in fact follow from scripture. It’s not a coincidence.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Modern society? It has been the rule in many rural Eastern societies for a couple of thousand years. IOW people living off the land either in hunter or fishing type sustenance groups or farmers. It is meant as a universal cure for the ailment of being human.

Woh. I did not say that. I was responding to your statement about modern society.

It ain’t no mythical state. They can fucking see it brain scans and eegs and more. Just because I don’t like what they consider enlightenment doesn’t mean I don’t recognize what their years of discipline can create.

You are talking about things you have very little direct experience of, but as if you know what you are talking about. It’s like what you imagine Buddhism is and isn’t and that isn’t very interesting to me. Those guys can do things physically and psychically and neuronally that other people cannot do, and under stress. And they can, yes, live in these states. I am talking about masters here.

Again, this is easily explained by methymologizing. I am not saying the natural state of primitive man was without emotion, or expression of emotion; I would think it involved acceptance of emotion rather than the view that certain emotions were unacceptable. And though it may seem counterintuitive, the acceptance of emotion does lead to less emotionality, or a calmer, happier state of mind; it means one doesn’t have to feel bad or guilty about feeling or expressing emotion, which would otherwise exacerbate negative emotions.

Except they tended to be very expressive of emotions – and we can see this in all contacts with indigenous groups in first contact. They were not like Buddhists at all.

If you disidentify with emotions, you are cutting them off. If you do not do this, you are not practicing Buddhism very deeply yet.

It is not the same thing as biting your tongue or the Protestant stiff way of suppressing emotions, but its actually an even more effective way to suppress emotions, buy cutting them off and atrophying them eventually. If you cut off the expression of emotions and disidentify with them, you are suppression them. Emotions are a bodily process, including expression.

It is the rule in Buddhism, so counter examples are missing the point. The kids are always treated in the same way, not just when they are ‘bad’. In this analogy.

I disagree. The more I have identified with my emotions and let them express, the less I find any need or excuse to control my behavior. And this has not led me to hit anyone and my emotional expression includes beyond primal screaming type expression and includes all the emotions, even the ones judged to be negative.

Beyond what Buddhists do and what’s going on inside, we can all have our personal opinions of what counts as a “good” way of life or a “bad” way of life. ← This is typically subjective. Being in touch with all one’s emotions and having no qualms with expressing them can be seen as a good thing… or a bad thing if the expression of those emotions is destructive. I’m in agreement with you about the badness of cutting one’s self off from one’s emotions–and it’s no surprise that many Buddhists do this–but I disagree that expressing one’s emotions all the time (assuming that means letting one’s emotions take control of one’s behavior, including self-expression in social situations) is always a good thing. I think the Buddhist who practices control over his behavior (meaning controlling how his emotions determine his behavior and self-expression) is general on the right path.
I don’t generally express my emotions where they will be judged or attacked. By people who feel that everything like that must be suppressed. I don’t do this because the emotions are wrong, but because I don’t need their gloppy judgments and perhaps actions coming at me. IOW my fear of and distaste for the experiences this would lead to - along with practical concerns(like I will rarely yell at someone with a gun, say) - makes me avoid expressing there - though once I get somewhere I can let them rip about that situation, I do.

The Buddhist who does what you say at the end may be doing what he wants, but it is not the right path for me.

I think I am going to let this interchange drop, at least for a while. I guess in part because what you say Buddhism is and should be doesn’t match what Buddhists tell me, Buddhists at all levels, but most importantly masters. Now I do not assume that someone running a temple must be right or is really a master. But I experienced universal answers to questions around emotions, universal judgments of them, and judgments then backed up in the context of the Buddha’s life, scripture, what they learned via meditation and more. And that is there choice, and I do not want to pull them away from their choice. I am trying to make clear why that is not my choice. And my pulling away from Buddhism is not a mistake because I am confusing fallible human reactions with Buddhism, but rather because of what Buddhism is. I could think that all these people who do identify with Buddhism and some of whom are experts, though fallible, understand Buddhism, or I could choose to take your version, you being another potentially fallible person, in this case not a Buddhist.

okay, bout mindfulness. yeah its like a drug or medicine. its kind of a shitty drug honestly. Fuckers ban weed so people do mindfulness shit to cope with their PTSD and fucked up traumatic memories.

Do i think mindfulness is effective? Only works for certain people. If you have dysphoria or dissociation it may mess up your mind worse. Fuckers need to legalize weed and shit. Weed is the only real cure for depression or PTSD. Without weed i am the most miserable and antisocial motherfucker in town.

Now, cuckservatives will come on and tell me, the reason I am so mentally fucked up is because of weed. Nope. I hardly ever smoke the stuff. I was mentally fucked up to begin with. This world traumatizes you. Lots of shitty people in the planet.

And yeah, not a fan of pansy passivity. Its like u smoke a blunt. U envision the utopia. You go to bed. Next morning, u wake the fuck up and build the fucking utopia. If you cant build it you find someone who can. Not a fan of pansy Passifist buddha bullshit of doing nothing. That is not wisdom. Its an excuse for lazy fuckers to not feel bad about themselves.

So, the facts. Fact is, did weed one time and OBE’d that time. Only happened for half a second. My consciousness field expanded beyond my physical brain I saw my own ears for a brief moment.

You have to analyze it like this. Why do you see the world in a visual sense? What is doing the seeing? Its just a web of nuerons.

Id like to do a longer OBE but because weed is banned, I cant. These puritan christian motherfuckers are all anti-science and shit. They want to ban weed and psychadelic drugs so i cant do science. I want to study my own mind and brain and be a test subject of my own experimination. I need a longer OBE so i can prove OBEs once and for all, dont need these stupid christian puritan cuck motherfuckers to ruin it for me.

But Gib, isn’t it at the essence of Buddhism that neither of these things are real?